> Applying intermediate scrutiny to the federal ban on arms possession by unauthorized aliens, the court found the law to be reasonable. Since unauthorized aliens "often live largely outside the formal system" and are "harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity," the government may rationally limit their access to firearms.

> Thus, the Seventh Circuit leaves Meza-Rodriguez with the right to bear arms, but without the ability to exorcise that right under federal law.

What is the point of a theoretical right that can't be exercised in practice? Citizens of the USSR had the right to free speech, free political expression, etc.

> What is the point of a theoretical right that can't be exercised in practice?

It is perhaps a more accurate description to say that Meza-Rodriquez is in the class of people to whom the right applies, but that the right allows restrictions based on conduct, including illegal presence.

Does that same reasoning apply to free speech?

The First Amendment does not have the same restrictions as the Second Amendment.

To the extent that your speech does not also constitute illegal action, there are no restrictions on speech and those protections do not depend on nationality, citizenship, etc. All that matters is the jurisdiction of the US court system (since they can't enforce First Amendment rights if they don't have jurisdiction).

Some types of speech are also acts, like conspiring to commit a crime, or inciting violent action. In those cases, the content of the speech is protected, but the actions of the speech are subject to prosecution.